superpos_poll_events

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so the description must carry full burden. It discloses cursor-based iteration and return of seq numbers, but fails to mention rate limits, idempotency, authentication requirements, or behavior when cursor is null or hive_id is omitted.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by return value info. No redundant words, clear and efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the polling pattern and 3 optional parameters, the description lacks detail on limit, hive_id, and behavior for null cursor. Output schema exists but is not summarized, leaving the agent without full context to use the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description only explains the cursor parameter. The 'limit' parameter (default 50) is not described at all, and 'hive_id' is entirely omitted. This leaves the agent without understanding of these parameters' meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it fetches events from the hive since a cursor, using specific verbs and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like superpos_poll_tasks, though the resource (events vs tasks) is distinct.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for polling events sequentially via cursor, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., searching events). No when-not-to-use or examples provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.